Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lewis v. Painter, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    31 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Thomas L. Lewis's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition. While the district court had relied on a case that was recently overruled, the appeals court determined that the state habeas court's decision was still consistent with clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-05-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 00-6109

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Thomas L. Lewis's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition. While the district court had relied on a case that was recently overruled, the appeals court determined that the state habeas court's decision was still consistent with clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    31 views2 pages

    Lewis v. Painter, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Thomas L. Lewis's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's acceptance of the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition. While the district court had relied on a case that was recently overruled, the appeals court determined that the state habeas court's decision was still consistent with clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 00-6109

    THOMAS L. LEWIS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    HOWARD PAINTER, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-99-167-2)

    Submitted:

    May 11, 2000

    Decided:

    May 18, 2000

    Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Thomas L. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Perry Macia, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas L. Lewis appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. 2254 (West 1994 &
    Supp. 1999).

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and


    find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

    appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning


    of the district court.

    See Lewis v. Painter, No. CA-99-167-2

    (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 4, 2000).*

    We dispense with oral argument because

    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.

    DISMISSED

    The district court relied on our interpretation of 28


    U.S.C.A. 2254(d)(1) (West Supp. 1999) announced in Green v.
    French, 143 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1090
    (1999), to deny Lewis relief. The Supreme Court recently overruled
    that aspect of Green, however, in Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct.
    1495 (2000). We have reviewed Lewiss appeal in light of Williams
    and conclude the state habeas corpus courts decision was not
    contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
    established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
    Williams, 120 S. Ct. at 1517 (quoting 2254(d)(1)).
    2

    You might also like